Search for: "The Appeals 4th Appellate District 205"
Results 1 - 20
of 40
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jun 2012, 5:00 am
., 205 Cal.App.4th 1316 (May 14, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) held that the trial court erred in concluding that the UCL's four-year statute of limitations barred public prosecutor claims brought under the UCL's "fraudulent" prong. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 9:04 am
Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2012) 200 Cal.App.4th 1480: The Court of Appeal, Second District, upheld the use of a variable baseline in Neighbors for Smart Rail. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
Empire Today LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1150; Kanbar v. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 2:58 am
Plaintiff was convicted, lost on appeal, argued ineffective assistance of counsel, lost, tried to take an appeal to the AD, lost, finally got to US District Court and gained habeas relief. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 5:00 am
Expungement Assistance Services, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Mar. 14, 2013), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) held that Prop. 64 did not eliminate UCL actions brought against a competitor whose unlawful business practices were stealing away the plaintiff's customers, market share and profits. [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 4:00 am
In Uber Technologies Pricing Cases, ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Mar. 23, 2020), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division One) considered an action against Uber by "several taxi companies and taxi medallion owners" "alleging violation of the Unfair Practices Act’s (UPA) prohibition against below-cost sales (Bus & Prof. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 11:59 am
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 8:55 am
County of Marin (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 195, 204, fn. 6 (SPAWN), Code Civ. [read post]
1 May 2013, 8:42 am
California Fish and Game Commission (April 15, 2013, D061121) ___Cal.App.4th ___, the Fourth Appellate District held that the California APA did not require a petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies in order to challenge Commission regulations creating marine protected areas and marine managed areas. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 2:32 pm
The Court of Appeal rejected Appellants’ arguments. [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 3:08 pm
”]; Meyer, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 645 [“Section 1782, subdivision (d) contemplates the filing of a CLRA action for injunctive relief alone, and such actions are not subject to the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b) of notice and allowance for voluntary correction. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
Empire Today LLC, 205 Cal.App.4th 1138 (2012). [read post]
26 Mar 2020, 4:00 am
Mar. 16, 2020), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) considered an appeal from orders denying an anti-SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case. [read post]
6 Sep 2016, 11:23 am
Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 650, 653; Benton v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 8:40 pm
The Court of Appeal, Third District, held the appellant had not satisfied her burden. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 8:58 am
City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296;Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 11:21 am
On appeal, the Second Appellate District sharply disagreed with the decisions in Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 2:39 pm
In a 77-page published opinion filed on July 30, 2020, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. [read post]
Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
(March 20, 2014, BS131347) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the second appellate district, Division Five, roundly upheld the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (“department”) certification of an environmental impact report (“EIR”) assessing the effects of a resource management plan, conservation plan, streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, in tandem with approval of each plan and issuance of the associated incidental take permits. [read post]
14 Nov 2008, 6:48 pm
Opinion below (District Court for the District of Columbia) Statement as to jurisdiction Motion to dismiss or affirm Reply of appellant Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (in support of petitioner) __________________ Docket: 08-5274 Title: Dean v. [read post]
